Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289–293

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Mix design of concrete with recycled clay-brick-powder using the orthogonal

design method
Zhi Ge a, Zhili Gao b, Renjuan Sun a, Li Zheng a,⇑
a
Department of Transportation Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China
b
Department of Construction Management and Engineering, College of Engineering and Architecture, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research studied the effect of clay-brick-powder (CBP) on concrete mechanical properties, including
Received 1 July 2011 compressive strength, static elastic modulus, and flexural strength. The orthogonal experimental design
Received in revised form 3 January 2012 method was used to study the significance sequence of all influencing factors, including water/cementi-
Accepted 3 January 2012
tious material ratio, sand ratio, replacement level, and average particle size of the CBP. A total of 17 mixes
Available online 30 January 2012
were tested including one normal cement concrete as reference. The mixtures with CBP reach more than
50 MPa and 20 GPa for 28-day compressive strength and elastic modulus, respectively. The flexural
Keywords:
strength ranged from 10 to 12 MPa. Experiment results showed that recycled CBP could be used as partial
Recycled clay-brick-powder
Average particle size
replacement of cement in concrete. The optimal mix proportion was determined based on the experi-
Replacement ratio mental and orthogonal analysis.
Mechanical properties Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
China is the largest national consumer of cement in the world,
with the production of 1.9 billion tons in 2010 and the previous
year-on-year growth 15.5% [1]. With current technology, produc-
ing 1 ton of cement consumes 1.7 ton raw material and approxi-
mately 7000 MJ of electrical power and fuel energy [2] and emits
0.75–1 ton carbon dioxide gas, 1–2 kg sulfur dioxide, and dust
[3]. However, the quantity of cement raw material, including lime-
stone and clay, is limited and non-renewable. Therefore, the ce-
ment industry has serious environmental issues and causes
sustainability problems. One way to reduce the negative impacts
of the cement industry is replacing the cement component of con-
crete with other materials.
One potential source for a replacing material is waste clay-brick.
Waste clay-brick is continually increasing as more old building
demolished, and is becoming a major pollutant. The waste clay-
brick is commonly land filled so it not only occupies the valuable
space but also causes environmental concerns. Therefore, utiliza-
tion of the waste clay brick becomes an urgent need. The partially
replacement of cement with waste clay-brick-powder (CBP) could
reduce the pollution from both cement production and clay-brick
disposal.
The use of clay brick as aggregates in concrete had been pro-
posed in the 1990s [4]. However, recycled clay-brick aggregate
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sdzhengli@yahoo.cn (L. Zheng).
has not been widely applied due to some obstacles, such as impu-
rities in the material, lack of knowledge on the behavior of con-
crete, and the limit of available standards on the use of recycled
aggregate [5]. Recently, some researchers have studied the possi-
bility of using clay brick as aggregate to make high-strength con-
crete [6–12]. Khalaf [9] showed that compressive strength of
samples with clay brick as coarse aggregate exceeded the design
values, and reached the strength of concrete using normal granite
aggregate, though the flexural strength was approximately 8% less
than pure concrete strength. Debieb and Kenai [12] reported that
the percentage of recycled aggregates was limited to 25% and
50% for the coarse and fine aggregates, respectively. Compared to
normal concrete, the compressive strength and elastic modulus
of brick-concrete decreased 30–40%.
Most current research uses waste clay-brick as coarse or fine
aggregate. Only a few researchers have studied the potential of using
CBP as a partial cement replacement to make mortar. Turanli and
Moriconi [13,14] found that as a pozzolanic material, CBP had the
potential to suppress expansion due to the alkali-silica reaction.
Wild et al. [15,16] and O’Farrell et al. [17,18] reported that the pres-
ence of brick influenced the compressive strength and pore size dis-
tribution of mortar. However, limited research is available for
concrete with CBP.
The objective of this paper was to study the mechanical proper-
ties and mix design of concrete with cement partially replaced by
CBP using orthogonal method. The new approach could reduce the
amount of cement needed, conserve natural resources, reduce envi-
ronmental pollution, and coincidentally decrease the project cost.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.002
290 Z. Ge et al. / Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289–293

2. Experimental work 120

2.1. Material
100

Accumulated Retained
The cement used was ordinary Portland cement with a 28-day compressive

Percentage (%)
strength of 42.5 MPa. The main chemical components of cement are provided in 80
Table 1.
The CBP used in the tests was recycled construction waste. The clay brick was 60
crushed and ground to four different average particle sizes (0.3 mm, 0.1 mm,
0.06 mm and 0.04 mm). Fig. 1 shows the gradation of three different CBP, except Coarse aggregate
40
the 0.3 mm CBP, and cement. The CBP was coarser than cement particles. Based
on the sieve analysis, the size of 0.3 mm brick-powder was between 0.3 mm and Fine aggregate
0.6 mm. XRD test indicated that the main crystalline phases of CBP were quartz, 20
rutile, and hematite (Fig. 2). The water absorption was 22.0%, 16.5%, 12.0% and
10.6%, for 0.04 mm, 0.06 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm CBP, respectively. 0
The aggregate used for all mixes was local natural sand. The fineness modulus 0.05 0.5 5
of sand was 3.1, water absorption was 2.2%, and specific gravity was 2.6. The coarse
Sieve Size (mm)
aggregate was one type of local limestone, with different particle size ranges of
5–10 mm and 10–20 mm. The gradation of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate is
Fig. 3. The gradation of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate.
shown in Fig. 3.
The high-range water reducer was RHEOPLUS 326 from BASF Company, China.
The dosage of high-range water reducer was 1.1–1.4% of cementitious material. and high-frequency ultrasonic vibration. XRD tests were conducted with the X-ray
diffractometer of Rigaku D/MAX-rA in powder diffraction method, with Cu Ka,
voltage 40 kV and current 40 mA. The scanning speed is 4°/min.
2.2. Test methods Concrete mechanical properties were tested according to GB/T50081-2002 [19].
Samples were cured in the standard curing room with 20 ± 2 °C temperature and
The size distribution of cement and clay-brick-powder was performed with the 95% humidity until testing. Compressive strength tests were performed on
equipment of XA.L-201 Laser Diffraction Particle Size Analyzer. The adequate dis- 100-mm concrete cubes at 7 and 28 days. The third-point loading method was
persion of samples is conducted by Wet dispersion technique, mechanical agitation applied to determine the 28-day flexural strength of 100  100  400-mm prisms.
For elastic modulus, the 100  100  300-mm prisms were tested at 28 days.

Table 1
The main chemical components of cement. 3. Experiment design
Components CaO SiO2 Al2O3 MgO P2O5 K2O SO3 Na2O
This paper studied the effect of four factors: (A) water/cementi-
Content (%) 75.4 21.9 1.3 1.3 0.03 2.7 2.0 0.07
tious material (W/CM) ratio, (B) sand ratio, (C) average particle size
and (D) replacement ratio of CBP on concrete mechanical proper-
ties. Each factor had four different levels (Table 2). Since the full
factorial design requires 256 mixes, the orthogonal experimental
100
0.04mm brick-powder design was adopted to reduce the number of mixes. According to
0.06mm brick-powder
the orthogonal experimental design table of L16(45), a total of 17
80 0.1mm brick-powder
Cumulative passing (%)

Cement

Table 2
60
The experiment variables design.

Level Variable
40
W/CM Sand ratio Average particle size Replacement ratio
(A) (B) (%) (C) (mm) (D) (%)
20 1 0.26 31 0.04 10
2 0.28 33 0.06 20
3 0.30 35 0.1 25
0
1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 4 0.32 37 0.3 30

Sieve size (mm)

Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of cement and clay-brick-powder.

Table 3
The orthogonal experimental design table.

Mix no. A B (%) C (mm) D (%) Blank column

1 0.26 31 0.04 10 1
2 0.26 33 0.06 20 2
3 0.26 35 0.1 25 3
4 0.26 37 0.3 30 4
5 0.28 31 0.1 20 4
6 0.28 33 0.3 10 3
7 0.28 35 0.04 30 2
8 0.28 37 0.06 25 1
9 0.30 31 0.3 25 2
10 0.30 33 0.1 30 1
11 0.30 35 0.06 10 4
12 0.30 37 0.04 20 3
13 0.32 31 0.06 30 3
14 0.32 33 0.04 25 4
15 0.32 35 0.3 20 1
16 0.32 37 0.1 10 2
17 0.28 35 0 0 –
Fig. 2. XRD powder pattern of CBP.
 Z. Ge et al. / Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289–293 291

mixes were tested, including one normal cement concrete as refer-
ence (Table 3). Since there are only four factors studied, a blank
column was set in the orthogonal table. According the orthogonal
design theory, this blank column would be used as the fifth factor
to calculate the error.
The reference concrete mix contained 496 kg/m3 of cement,
1759 kg/m3 of aggregate, 139 kg/m3 of water, and 6 kg/m3 high-
range water reducer. The total weight of cement and CBP was kept
constant (496 kg/m3) for all mixes.
4. Experiment results and analysis
4.1. Orthogonal analysis
The orthogonal experimental analysis was employed to obtain
the optimal concrete mix. The analysis process is as following [20]:
(1) Select the suitable mix proportion based on the experimen-
tal results.
(2) Conduct the range analysis to evaluate the significance lev-
els of all the influencing factors and select the optimal level
of each factor. For range analysis, the K value and range
value (R) were calculated. The K value for each level of a
parameter was the sum of four values of samples with the
same level. For example, for concrete strength, the K1 for
parameter A was the sum of concrete strength of samples
with W/CM of 0.26. The range value for each factor was
the difference between the maximal and minimal values of
the four levels. The most significant factor has the highest
R value. The mix proportion was selected based on the range
analysis.
(3) According to the two selected mix designs and the order of
significance levels, the optimal concrete mix design can be
found.
(4) The sum of squares (SS), degree of freedom (DF), F value (F),
and P-value (P) were summarized and compared to deter-
mine the significance level of all factors. P-value was used
to test the significance of various factors. Then the optimal
concrete mix design can be confirmed.
4.2. Compressive strength
higher strength than the reference sample. Eight mixes have
28-day strength of more than 50 MPa. Mix 2 had the highest
7-day and 28-day compressive strength of 47.1 MPa and
57.9 MPa, respectively. Based on compressive strength, the optimal
concrete mix is A1B2C2D2, which represents W/CM at level 1, sand
ratio at level 2, average particle size of brick at level 2, and cement
replacement ratio at level 2.
The statistic analysis of the effect of different factors on
compressive strength is summarized in Table 5. According to the
R-value, the most significant factor is W/CM, followed by sand
ratio. Replacement ratio and average particle size of CBP have
similar degree of influence. As the W/CM increased from 0.26 to
0.32, the 7- and 28-day compressive strength reduces 32.8% and
29.9%, respectively. However, for the other three parameters, the
strength changes are insignificant (less than 10% changes) as the
parameter level changed.
Based on the K value (Table 5), the optimal mix of 7-day and
28-day compressive strength is A1B2C2D1. According to experimen-
tal results (Table 4), the optimal concrete mix is A1B2C2D2. Factor D
had less influence on concrete compressive strength and the order
of K value for parameter D was D1, D3, D2 and D4. With the replace-
ment ratio increased from D1 to D3 and D2, the strength only
reduced 1.8% and 4.2%, respectively. The result is consistent with
previous work [18]. Because the strength reduction is small, D3 is
selected to reduce the amount of cement and cost. In conclusion,
the optimal concrete mix proportioning has W/CM of 0.26, sand ra-
tio of 33%, 0.06 mm CBP, and 25% cement replacement (A1B2C2D3).
Table 6 contains the variance analysis. The small P-value of W/
CM indicates that W/CM has significant effect on compressive
strength of samples with CBP. However, the other factors do not
have significant effect on compressive strength.
4.3. Static elastic modulus
The static elastic modulus of concrete is summarized in Table 4.
Test results showed that the normal cement concrete had the
highest elastic modulus of 32.4 GPa. Replacing cement with CBP
reduced the elastic modulus due to the low elastic modulus of clay
brick. The results confirm previous research [12,21]. Mix nine had
the lowest modulus of 14.6 GPa. Based on modulus of elasticity
experiments, the optimal clay-brick-concrete mix is A1B2C2D2.

Table 4 provides the compressive strength of samples with

Table 5
recycled CBP. On 7th day, four groups of concrete with CBP had
The range analysis on compressive strength.

Factors 7-day compressive strength 28-day compressive strength

Table 4
A B C D A B C D
Mechanical properties of concrete.
K1 172.1 133.1 143.2 149.7 218.1 184.7 190.7 190.5
Mix 7-day 28-day Elastic Flexural K2 155.5 155.9 149.6 139.7 205.6 197.2 191.0 186.2
No. compressive compressive modulus strength K3 127.4 140.7 137.1 145.4 170.4 183.5 180.6 188.7
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) K4 115.7 141.0 140.8 135.8 152.7 181.5 184.6 181.4
1 42.2 53.5 21.5 12.2 K 570.6 570.6 570.6 570.6 746.8 746.8 746.8 746.8
2 47.1 57.9 25.3 10.8 R 56.4 22.9 12.4 13.9 65.3 15.7 10.4 9.2
3 43.3 54.4 24.9 10.3
4 39.5 52.3 25.2 9.8
5 33.4 50.2 20.7 10.2
6 45.0 56.2 20.9 11.1 Table 6
7 36.6 50.1 21.0 9.1 The variance analysis on compressive strength.
8 40.5 49.2 21.7 8.5
9 29.5 41.9 16.5 10.4 Sources of 7-day compressive 28-day compressive
10 31.7 39.9 15.2 9.9 variation strength strength
11 33.9 44.7 15.9 9.7
SS DF F P SS DF F P
12 32.3 43.9 17.6 10.3
13 28.0 39.1 16.9 8.4 A 497.9 3 37.9 0.007 690.3 3 17.6 0.021
14 32.1 43.2 18.2 9.4 B 68.7 3 5.2 0.104 37.8 3 1.0 0.513
15 26.9 34.3 17.1 8.8 C 20.5 3 1.6 0.362 19.0 3 0.5 0.719
16 28.7 36.1 16.4 11.1 D 28.2 3 2.2 0.273 11.8 3 0.3 0.825
17 41.6 55.1 32.4 12.2 Error 13.2 3 1.0 0.5 39.2 3 1.0 0.5
292 Z. Ge et al. / Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289–293

Table 7

Compressive/Flexural strength
6.0
The range and variance analysis on elastic modulus.
5.5
Factors Static elasticity modulus
K value Sources of variation 5.0

K1 K2 K3 K4 K R SS DF F P 4.5
A 96.7 84.2 65.3 68.2 314.8 31.4 159.9 3 43.6 0.006
B 75.5 79.6 78.9 80.8 314.8 5.3 3.8 3 1.0 0.488
4.0
C 78.3 79.7 77.2 79.6 314.8 2.5 1.1 3 0.3 0.832 y = 0.073x + 1.2839
3.5
D 74.6 80.7 81.2 78.3 314.8 6.6 6.8 3 1.9 0.311 R² = 0.5924
Error – – – – – – 3. 7 3 1.0 0.500
3.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Compressive strength (MPa)

Fig. 5. The relationship between flexural strength and compressive strength.

Static modulus of elasticity (GPa)

35

30

25
EC ¼ 5:3976fc1=2  17:094 ð1Þ

20 where EC is the elastic modulus at 28 days in GPa, and fc is the com-

15
10
5
5 5.5 6 6.5
Compressive strength1/2 (MPa)
Fig. 4. The relationship between compressive strength and elastic modulus.
Table 7 provides the range analysis. The order of the parameter
importance is as follows: W/CM, cement replacement ratio, sand
ratio, and average particle size of CBP. Based on the K value, the
optimal parameters of elastic modulus is A1B4C2D3. As the sand le-
vel increased from B2 to B4, the elastic modulus increased 1.6%, so
B4 was selected. Because the K value order of factor D is as follows:
D3, D2, D4 and D1, therefore, concrete with D3 has higher elastic
modulus. Furthermore, selection of D3 instead of D2 could reduce
the amount of cement and project cost. In conclusion, the optimal
concrete mix proportioning is A1B4C2D3.
The analysis of variance on elastic modulus is provided in Table
7. The W/CM has significant effect on concrete strength. Effects of
other parameters are not significant (P > 0.3). Based on the above
discussion, the optimal concrete mix proportioning was W/CM of
0.26, sand ratio of 37%, 0.06 mm CBP and 25% cement replacement
ratio.
4.4. The relationship between compressive strength and elastic
modulus
Fig. 4 illustrates a linear relationship between compressive
strength and elastic modulus of the recycled CBP concrete at
28th day (Eq. (1)). The coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.73,
which indicates that 73% of the variation in elastic modulus can
be explained by the variation of compressive strength.
pressive strength at 28 days in MPa.
y = 5.3976x - 17.094
R² = 0.7258
4.5. Flexural strength
7 7.5 8
Table 4 summarizes the flexural strength of samples with recy-
cled CBP. Test results show that the normal cement concrete and
mix 1 of CBP concrete had the highest flexural strength of
12.2 MPa, which means the CBP concrete could potentially main-
tain the same level of the flexural strength. This trend is similar
with Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat [21]. Based on flexural strength
results, the optimal concrete mix is A1B1C1D1.
The R value in Table 8 indicates that the most significant factor
is cement replacement level, followed by W/CM, average particle
size of CBP and sand ratio, respectively. The K value decreased as
the replacement level increased, which indicates a reduced flexural
strength. Compared to the concrete with 10% CBP, the strength de-
creased 9.1%, 12.5% and 15.7% for the samples with replacement
ratio of 20%, 25%, and 30%, respectively.
Based on the K value (Table 8), the optimal mix of flexural
strength is A1B1C3D1. According to the results (Table 4), the optimal
concrete mix was A1B1C1D1. Factor C has less influence on concrete
flexural strength. When the particle size changed from C3 to C1,
strength only decreased 1.3%. Considering 0.1 mm brick-powder
had smaller water absorption (12.0%) than the 0.04 mm brick
(22.1%) and previous study showed that the C3 increased workabil-
ity [22], C3 was selected to increase the fresh concrete workability.
Sand ratio is the least significant factor. The K values for B1 and B2
are almost identical. So B2 was selected along with the optimal mix
of compressive strength of A1B2C2D3. In conclusion, the optimal
concrete mix proportioning was A1B2C3D1.
Table 8 provides the analysis of variance on flexural strength.
Only cement replacement ratio and W/CM have significant
influence on flexural strength (P < 0.1). Based on the above discus-
sion, the optimal concrete mix proportioning is A1B2C3D1, Which is

Table 8
The range and variance analysis on flexural strength.

Factors 28-day flexural strength

K value Sources of variation
K1 K2 K3 K4 K R SS DF F P
A 43.0 38.8 40.3 37.7 159.8 5.4 4.0 3 5.5 0.097
B 41.1 41.1 37.9 39.6 159.8 3.2 1.7 3 2.4 0.249
C 40.9 37.4 41.4 40.2 159.8 4.1 2.4 3 3.3 0.175
D 44.1 40.1 38.5 37.1 159.8 6.9 6.7 3 9.2 0.051
Error – – – – – – 0.7 3 1.0 0.500
 Z. Ge et al. / Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289–293
W/CM of 0.26, sand ratio of 33%, 0.1 mm brick-powder and 10%
cement replacement ratio.
4.6. The relationship between flexural strength and compressive
strength
Fig. 5 shows a moderate linear relationship between 28-day
compressive/flexural strength ratio and compressive strength of
samples with CBP (Eq. (2)). The coefficient of determination (R2)
is 0.59, which indicates that 59% of the variation in Y can be
explained by the variation of X.
fc
ff ¼
0:0659f c þ 1:5739
where ff and fc are the flexural strength and compressive strength at
28 days in MPa, respectively.
5. Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions can be drawn from this
study:
(1) As with normal concrete, W/CM was the most significant
factor on mechanical properties of concrete containing
CBP. Other parameters within tested range had less effect.
(2) Addition of CBP could reduce concrete compressive strength.
However, with proper mix design, concrete containing CBP
could reach 50 MPa or even higher than the reference sam-
ple. The optimal mix of compressive strength had W/CM of
0.26, sand ratio of 33%, 0.06 mm brick-powder and 25%
cement replacement (A1B2C2D3).
(3) The optimal mix for static elasticity modulus is A1B4C2D3.
However, with the optimal W/CM of 0.26, compared to the
normal concrete, a reduction of elasticity was observed for
brick samples.
(4) The flexural strength of CBP concrete ranged from 10 to
12 MPa, which were close to the reference mix. The ratio
of compressive/flexural strength varied between 3 and 6.
The optimal mix proportion based on flexural strength is
A1B2C3D1.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by Independent Innovation Foundation
of Shandong University, IIFSDU (2009TB012). The authors would
like to express their gratitude to the material laboratory in the
School of Civil Engineering, Shandong University for the support
of this research project. Sincere acknowledgements are also given
to Pengcheng Li, Xueping Ma, and Xueyu Gao for their great
293
assistance. Special thanks to Jie Han and Kun Zhang for their assis-
tance with the experimental results.
References
[1] China building news network. 2010 cement production of the preliminary
statistics. <http://jiancai.newsccn.com/2011-01-21/32300.html> [01.05.11].
[2] Mindess S, Young JF, Darwin D. Concrete. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2003. p. 20–21.
[3] Chen C, Hu D, Wen QX, Zhang DK. Resource depletion and environmental
discharge of cement production in China. J Anhui Agric Sci
2007;35(28):8986–9.
[4] Hansen TC. Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. London: E&FN
SPON; 1992.
[5] Collins RJ, Sherwood PT. Use of waste and recycled materials as aggregates:
ð2Þ specifications and standards. London: Dept. of the Environment Rep, HMSO;
1995.
[6] Mansur MA, Wee TH, Lee SC. Crushed bricks as coarse aggregate for concrete.
ACI Mater J 1999;96(4):478–84.
[7] Cheng HL. Study on recycled concrete made by fly-ash and waste clay-brick.
China Concr Cem Prod 2005;5:48–50.
[8] Khatib JM. Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled aggregate. Cem
Concr Res 2005;35:763–9.
[9] Khalaf FM. Using crushed clay brick as coarse aggregate in concrete. J Mater
Civil Eng 2006;18(4):518–26.
[10] Zeng L. Study on the production of recycled concrete by wasted concrete as
coarse aggregate and wasted brick as fine aggregate. Wall Mater Innovat
Energy Saving Build 2006;8:35–6.
[11] Yan HD, Chen XF. Experimental studies and analyses on properties of clay
brick recycled aggregate concrete. In: Tenth nation cement and concrete
chemistry and application technology conference; 2007.
[12] Debieb F, Kenai S. The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as aggregate in
concrete. Construct Build Mater 2008;22.
[13] Moriconi G, Corinaldesi V, Antonucci R. Environmentally-friendly mortars: a
way to improve bond between mortar and brick. Mater Struct
2003;36(December):702–8.
[14] Turanli L, Bektas F, Monteiro PJM. Use of ground clay brick as a pozzolanic
material to reduce the alkali–silica reaction. Cem Concr Res
2003;33(10):1539–42.
[15] Wild S, Khatib JM, Addis SD. The effect of firing temperature on the pozzolanic
properties of commercial brick clay. In: Dhir RK, Dyer TD, editors. International
congress-concrete in the service of mankind, concrete for environment
enhancement and products, University of Dundee. E&FN SPON; 1996. p.
685–96.
[16] Wild S, Khatib JM, Sabir BB, Addis SD. The potential of fired brick clay as a
partial cement replacement. In: Dhir RK, Dyer TD, editors. International
congress-concrete in the service of mankind, Dundee, June 1996. Concrete for
environment enhancement and products, theme 6: waste materials and
alternative products. E&FN SPON; 1996. ISBN: 0-419-21450.
[17] O’Farrell M, Khatib JM, Wild S. Porosity and pore size distribution of mortar
containing ground calcined brick clay. In: Proceedings of the fifth international
conference on modern building materials, structures and techniques, vol. 1.
Lithuania, Vilnius; 1997. p. 33–8.
[18] O’Farrell M, Wild S, Sabir BB. Pore size distribution and compressive strength
of waste clay brick mortar. Cem Concr Compos 2001;23:81–91.
[19] GB/T 50081-2002. Standard for test method of mechanical properties on
ordinary concrete.
[20] Liu SH, Leng FG. Mathematic skills applied to experimental researches for
building materials. China Architecture & Building Press; 2006.
[21] Akhtaruzzaman Ali A, Hasnat A. Properties of concrete using crushed brick as
aggregate. Concr Int 1983;5(2):58–63.
[22] Zheng L, Ge Z. Mechanical properties of mortar with recycled clay-brick-
powder. In: ASCE conf proc, ICCTP 2011: towards sustainable transportation
systems. doi: 10.1061/41186(421)335.